Dan Christensen🦇 of Math,Jan Burse🦨 of Logic-- take your b.s. over to sci.logic with your arsewipe AND truth table TFFF when it is actually TTTF


My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



> Kibo on>"Drag Queen of Math"
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> Is Dan gay? He stinks in logic is a known fact. But is he in Logic because Alan Turing was gay. Was George Boole gay? Some websites claim Boole was gay for he kissed young boys (needs verification).
> >
> > Dan Christensen posted this in 2019, indicating he is gay (not a proof though)
> > On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
> > >
> > > Dan
> > My interest in all of this is that how some people chose subjects and time to waste upon-- based on their sex preference, never recognizing they stink in that subject.
> >
> > We have to ask then, also, is Earle Jones gay, is Kibo Parry gay, is Jan Burse gay and the only reason they post in sci.math and sci.physics is their sex preference and they gang up on those they want to bully.
> >
> > So Dan, tell us if you are gay, for you stink in logic, and also Alan Turing along with George Boole were failures of Logic-- so dumb in logic that they believed AND truth table was TFFF when actually, it is TTTF.
> >
> > Dan's posting of logic is a pathetic idiocy, and the only thing that must sustain him and keep him going is his gay heroes-- Turing and Boole??

Dan Christensen🦇 of Math,Jan Burse🦨 of Logic-- take your b.s. over to sci.logic with your arsewipe AND truth table TFFF when it is actually TTTF


My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



> Kibo on>"Drag Queen of Math"
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

We can send a man to the Moon in 1960s, but McGill Univ cannot stop teaching falsehoods by 2022 of (1) AND truth table is TTTF not TFFF, (2) a slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse (3) a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (4) simply asking the question is the true electron of atoms the muon or the 0.5MeV particle. McGill Univ not only fails Science, but hates the truth and reality of science and the world of science.

> Dan Christensen🦇 of Math,Jan Burse🦨 of Logic-- take your b.s. over to sci.logic with your arsewipe AND truth table TFFF when it is actually TTTF
> 
>
>
> My 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
> Product details
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > Kibo on>"Drag Queen of Math"
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

By 2022 McGill Univ cannot help itself, cannot stop teaching falsehoods. We sent two men to land on the Moon in 1969, but McGill Univ by 2022 still teaches b.s. falsehoods (1) AND truth table is TTTF not TFFF, (2) a slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse (3) a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a limit b.s. hornswaggle of 0 width rectangles of interior area (4) simply asking the question is the true electron of atoms the muon or the 0.5MeV particle, for the muon is stuck inside a 840MeV Proton torus doing the Faraday Law. McGill Univ not only fails Science, but hates the truth and reality of science and the world of science.

Move Dan and Jan Burse bullshit logic over to sci.logic, for these two imps cannot understand AND truth table is TTTF not their mindless TFFF
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Michael Moroney
39
unread,
Handling Ordered Pairs in DC Proof 2.0
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 8:38:13 PM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote: > On Friday, August 26, 2022
10:33 PM


Move sickfuck Christensen and his jackarse Burse to sci.logic with their mindless AND truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF to avoid the mindless 2 OR 1 = 3, that shithead Christensen and Burse preach.

Sci.math is too good for two shitheads

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:24:15 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Move...

[snip]

When WILL you learn, Archie Poo???

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Move sickfuck Christensen and his jackarse Burse to sci.logic with their mindless AND truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF to avoid the mindless 2 OR 1 = 3, that shithead Christensen and Burse preach.

Sci.math is too good for two shitheads.

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



Mr.Meighan, does Canada enjoy torturing students with Dan's 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction, for Dan is stupid in following Boole logic that mixed up AND for OR truth tables. The true truth table of AND is TTTF not what Dan preaches TFFF. Why not just run students at McGill through the Rack or the Gauntlet-- not much difference than running students through a class with Dan Christensen.

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



Earle Jones sucking on your cock in his logo picture??? Dan Christensen???

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 11:42:09 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:26:14 AM UTC-4, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> >
> > To AP and Mitchell:
> >
> > How would you describe this? What is the value of y, if y = 1/x as x approaches zero?
> >
> > What happens to y?
> >
>
> As you approach the origin along the positive x-axis, the value of y keeps increasing.
>
> y will attain ANY positive real value, no matter how large or small. y will, for example,
>......... A similar analysis holds for approaching the origin along the negative x-axis.

Question Dan Christensen, why did you elide AP's true question and impose your own false quote of AP? Was Earle Jones sucking on your cock in his logo picture, and was it at SLAC the Stanford linear accelerator.

>
> To understand what happens at x=0, you have to understand what we mean by division on the real numbers. It is defined as follows:
>
> For all a, b, c in R and b =/=0, we have a/b=c iff a=c*b.
>
> Note that we can infer nothing using this definition when b=0. As such, we say that division by zero is undefined or indeterminate. So y, in the original question, will be undefined or indeterminate at x=0.
>
> I hope this helps these two wannabe mathematicians here.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Mr.Meighen, need your help to move Dan Christensen to sci.logic --does Canada enjoy torturing students with Dan's 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction, for Dan is stupid in following Boole logic that mixed up AND for OR truth tables. The true truth table of AND is TTTF not what Dan preaches TFFF. Why not just run students at McGill through the Rack or the Gauntlet-- not much difference than running students through a class with Dan Christensen.


My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensens fake math and science
He still believes we cannot show f1=\=f2 when the signature doesn't agree.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 24. August 2022 um 05:10:14 UTC+2:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:11:56 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Michael Meighen ...
> [snip
> When will you learn, Archie Poo?
> AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.
>
> In AP's OWN WORDS here:
>
> “Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
> --June 29, 2020
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
> “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
> --June 9, 2015
>
> “0/0 must be equal to 1.”
> -- June 9, 2015
>
> “0 is an infinite irrational number.”
> --June 28, 2015
>
> “No negative numbers exist.”
> --December 22, 2018
>
> “Rationals are not numbers.”
> --May 18, 2019
>
> According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
> --December 11, 2019
>
> Which could explain...
>
> “The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
> --May 31, 2019
>
> AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
>
> “New Logic
> AND
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F”
> --November 9, 2019
>
> AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
>
> "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
> --November 9, 2017
>
>
> And if that wasn't weird enough...
>
> “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
> --April 4, 1994
>
> “The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
> --November 14, 2019
>
> AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???
>
> “Since God-Pu is marching on.
> Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
> Its truth is marching on.
> It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
> It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
> Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
> Our God-Pu is marching on.”
> --December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Mr.Meighen, need your help to move Dan Christensen to sci.logic --does Canada enjoy torturing students with Dan's 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction, for Dan is stupid in following Boole logic that mixed up AND for OR truth tables. The true truth table of AND is TTTF not what Dan preaches TFFF. Why not just run students at McGill through the Rack or the Gauntlet-- not much difference than running students through a class with Dan Christensen.



My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



Fritz Feldhase 🤡 of Math and Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown 🃏 of Physics "bozo"
> > On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:02:52 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > fails at math and science:

Why Kibo Parry M and Dan Christensen spammers of sci.math, because UWO Linda Hasenfratz and Toronto Univ Rose M. Patten encourage all day all year all decade long spamming with their mindrot of 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction.
> Rose and Linda, why can no professor at your schools admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, or even admit that 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction is mindless idiocy, yet your schools, especially the imbecile Dan Christensen keeps teaching this Anti-science.
> Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> Pres. Meric Gertler
>
> Univ Toronto math dept
> Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
>
> Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> President Alan Shepard
> Amit Chakma (chem engr)
>
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

Fritz Feldhase 🤡 of Math and Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown 🃏 of Physics "bozo"
> > On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:02:52 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > fails at math and science:

Daily Spam B.S. generated by Christensen & Burse and their allies to front page hog sci.math

Fritz Feldhase, 65 "Without loss of generality...."

Why Kibo Parry M and Dan Christensen spammers of sci.math, because UWO Linda Hasenfratz and Toronto Univ Rose M. Patten encourage all day all year all decade long spamming with their mindrot of 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction.
> Rose and Linda, why can no professor at your schools admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, or even admit that 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction is mindless idiocy, yet your schools, especially the imbecile Dan Christensen keeps teaching this Anti-science.
> Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> Pres. Meric Gertler
>
> Univ Toronto math dept
> Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
>
> Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> President Alan Shepard
> Amit Chakma (chem engr)
>
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

Dan Christensen sickfuck of sci.math with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Dan the sickfuck of Canada education.

Dan Christensen
unread,
A quiet alternative to the madness of Hilbert's Hotel (reposted)
Given the renewed interest here in Hilbert's infinite hotel, I thought readers would be
3:11 PM


Time for another spanking Michael Meighen???
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 8:59:11 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Time for another spanking,

On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand Boole mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic TFFF, which leads to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot stop from boiling lobsters and crabs alive.
>
>
> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
[...]

Some people jam a butcher knife through a lobster, clean it, then broil it.

On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand Boole mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic TFFF, which leads to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot stop from boiling lobsters and crabs alive.
>
>
> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>>
[...]

Boiled alive is, well, it makes me shudder! Salem witch trials? Burned
alive? Damn...

On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand Boole mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic TFFF, which leads to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot stop from boiling lobsters and crabs alive.
>
>
> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
[...]

What they do to "dancing" bears, is really bad!

On 12/29/2022 11:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand Boole mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic TFFF, which leads
>> to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot stop from boiling
>> lobsters and crabs alive.
>>
>>
>> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>>>
> [...]
>
> Boiled alive is, well, it makes me shudder! Salem witch trials? Burned alive? Damn...

a lobster has more chromosomes than humans.

Sergi o explained :
> On 12/29/2022 11:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand Boole
>>> mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic TFFF, which
>>> leads to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as
>>> subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot stop
>>> from boiling lobsters and crabs alive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Boiled alive is, well, it makes me shudder! Salem witch trials? Burned
>> alive? Damn...
>
> a lobster has more chromosomes than humans.

So does a potato, but it doesn't scream when you boil it.

On 1/1/2023 12:43 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Sergi o explained :
>> On 12/29/2022 11:23 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>> For the same reason the mindless Dan Christensen cannot understand
>>>> Boole mistake of AND truth table is actually TTTF not the idiotic
>>>> TFFF, which leads to Boole's and Christensen insanity of 2 OR 1 = 3
>>>> with AND as subtraction. Is the same reason the mindless Dan
>>>> Christensen cannot stop from boiling lobsters and crabs alive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Boiled alive is, well, it makes me shudder! Salem witch trials?
>>> Burned alive? Damn...
>>
>> a lobster has more chromosomes than humans.
>
> So does a potato, but it doesn't scream when you boil it.

No shit. Damn. Actually, the following scene from the Muppet Show drives
the point home, in an interesting way:

https://youtu.be/GWGh1YYT4vI

Maria!

2-Mr.Meighen, need your help to move Dan Christensen to sci.logic --does Canada enjoy torturing students with Dan's 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction, for Dan is stupid in following Boole logic that mixed up AND for OR truth tables. The true truth table of AND is TTTF not what Dan preaches TFFF. Why not just run students at McGill through the Rack or the Gauntlet-- not much difference than running students through a class with Dan Christensen.

When bully spammer Dan Christensen loses in academia, does he read cnto spam then??????

cnto spam
unread,
solution manual for Statistics, Data Analysis, and Decision Modeling, 5th edition by James R. Evans
9:40 PM

cnto...@gmail.com's profile photo
cnto...@gmail.com
unread,
test bank for Financial Management Principles and Applications 8th Edition By Sheridan Titman
9:33 PM

cnto...@gmail.com's profile photo
cnto...@gmail.com
unread,
solution manual for Principles of Microeconomics 1st Edition by Betsey Stevenson
9:24 PM

cnto...@gmail.com's profile photo
cnto...@gmail.com
unread,
test bank for Principles of Microeconomics 1st Edition by Betsey Stevenson
9:18 PM


mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
If there is no way to test?
how would we know? Science wants to claim it does. But how? After a supernova how do planets form
8:23 PM

zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
zelos...@gmail.com
, …

38
Re: Gonna cum in my mouth?
8-WM,Olaf Scholz,Fritz Feldhase,Annalena Baerbock,FromTheRafters,Anja Karliczek,Gus Gassmann,Karl-
8:10 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …

7
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:01 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
27
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:13:01 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > > It must hold

> My 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
> Product details
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

the kibo volney dan christensen shower of spam

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:09:53 AM UTC-4, bwr fml wrote:
>

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: Meaningfulness of Negative Ageing in the Twin Paradox
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > It is similar in spacetime, where the distance is the (
2:24 PM

Woodruff Bellandi's profile photo
Woodruff Bellandi
, …
Bubba Pagano
3 unread,
Re: NEW LINK FOR MY BOOK;..... ibook2016.pdf
Ken Seto wrote: >> > Idiot.....my book is copy-righted and the copyright reviewer praised
2:17 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: This place is infested of 70+ relativists.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Richard Hertz wrote: > >> Pointed Ears: 73
2:10 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: Microsoft is illegally blocking the display of my book on this NG
2:03 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
2 unread,
Re: Begin to move yourself on your world line
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> > you cannot blame the Earth for your kinetic order. >>
1:59 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: Because of Einstein's light speed constant it can't slowed by gravity
1:56 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: On the simulations by Paul B. Andersen
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.02.2023 17:03, skrev patdolan: >> On Sunday, February 19,
1:52 PM

Bubba Pagano's profile photo
Bubba Pagano
unread,
Re: If you measure motion...
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > how does that give it a relative? > What if all the levels of
1:48 PM

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
Volney
5 unread,
Mathematical myth